Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
585
588
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the September 29, 2011
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CAG.R. CV No.
95414, which affirmed the April 25, 2008 Decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite (RTC), declaring the
marriage of Daniel Lee Fringer (Fringer) and respondent
Liberty Albios (Albios) as void from the beginning.
The Facts
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and
Albios were married before Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City
(MeTC), as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage with
Register No. 20041588.3
On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a
petition for declaration of nullity4 of her marriage with
Fringer. She alleged that immediately after their marriage,
they separated and never lived as husband and wife
because they never really had any intention of entering
into a married state or complying with any of their
essential marital obligations. She described their marriage
as one made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.
Summons was served on Fringer but he did not file his
answer. On September 13, 2007, Albios filed a motion to set
case for pretrial and to admit her pretrial brief. The RTC
ordered the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to conduct an
investiga
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 2632 penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Associate
Justice Florito S. Macalino of the Fifth Division, Manila.
2Id., at pp. 3839.
3Id., at p. 37.
4Id., at pp. 3335.
589
The RTC was of the view that the parties married each
other for convenience only. Giving credence to the
testimony of Albios, it stated that she contracted Fringer to
enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire American
citizenship that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay
him the sum of $2,000.00 that after the ceremony, the
parties went their separate ways that Fringer returned to
the United States and never again communicated with her
and that, in turn, she did not pay him the $2,000.00
because he never processed her petition for citizenship. The
RTC, thus, ruled that when
_______________
5Id., at pp. 3839.
6Id., at p. 39.
590
Assignment of Error
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION
OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT A MARRIAGE
CONTRACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING
FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WAS DONE
_______________
7Id., at pp. 4849.
591
The OSG argues that albeit the intention was for Albios
to acquire American citizenship and for Fringer to be paid
$2,000.00, both parties freely gave their consent to the
marriage, as they knowingly and willingly entered into
that marriage and knew the benefits and consequences of
being bound by it. According to the OSG, consent should be
distinguished from motive, the latter being inconsequential
to the validity of marriage.
The OSG also argues that the present case does not fall
within the concept of a marriage in jest. The parties here
intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid
marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose of Albios to
acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.
On October 29, 2012, Albios filed her Comment9 to the
petition, reiterating her stand that her marriage was
similar to a marriage by way of jest and, therefore, void
from the beginning.
On March 22, 2013, the OSG filed its Reply10 reiterating
its arguments in its petition for review on certiorari.
Ruling of the Court
The resolution of this case hinges on this sole question of
law: Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of
acquiring American citizenship in consideration of
$2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?
The Court resolves in the negative.
_______________
8 Id., at p. 13.
9 Id., at pp. 6171.
10Id., at pp. 8995.
592
_______________
11 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956. Lutwak v.
United States, 344 U.S. 604, 612613 (U.S. 1953).
12 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956 citing Schibi
v. Schibi, 69 A.2d 831 (Conn. 1949) (denying annulment where parties
married only to give a name to a prospective child) Bishop v. Bishop, 308
N.Y.S.2d 998 (Sup. Ct. 1970) Erickson v. Erickson, 48 N.Y.S.2d 588 (Sup.
Ct. 1944) (holding similarly to Schibi) Delfino v. Delfino, 35 N.Y.S.2d 693
(Sup. Ct. 1942) (denying annulment where purpose of marriage was to
protect the girls name and there was an understanding that the parties
would not live together as man and wife) Bove v. Pinciotti, 46 Pa. D. & C.
159 (1942) Campbell v. Moore, 189 S.E.2d 497 (S.C.1939) (refusing an
annulment where parties entered marriage for the purpose of legitimizing
a child) Chander v. Chander, No. 2937984, 1999 WL 1129721 (Va. Ct.
App. June 22, 1999) (denying annulment where wife married husband to
get his pension with no intention to consummate marriage because
husband knew that was the purpose of the marriage).
593
_______________
13 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007) http://www.minnesotalawreview.
org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf citing Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA), 237(a)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(G) (2000).
14 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007) http://www.minnesotalawreview.
org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf citing 132 CONG.
REC. 27,012, 27,015 (1986) (statement of Rep McCollum) (promoting the
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986).
15511 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975).
16 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007) http://www.minnesotalawreview.
org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf.
594
xxx But, that aside, Spitz and Sandler were never married
at all. Mutual consent is necessary to every contract and no
matter what forms or ceremonies the parties may go
through indicating the contrary, they do not contract if they
do not in fact assent, which may always be proved. x x x
Marriage is no exception to this rule: a marriage in jest is
not a marriage at all. xxx It is quite true that a marriage
without subsequent consummation will be valid but if the
spouses agree to a marriage only for the sake of representing
it as such to the outside world and with the understanding
that they will put an end to it as soon as it has served its
purpose to deceive, they have never really agreed to be
married at all. They must assent to enter into the relation as
it is ordinarily understood, and it is not ordinarily
understood as merely a pretence, or cover, to deceive others.18
(Italics supplied)
_______________
17151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
18United States v. Rubenstein, 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
19Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969),
affd, 440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971).
595
_______________
20 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956 citing
Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969), affd,
440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971).
21Matter of McKee, 17 I. & N. Dec. 332, 333 (B.I.A. 1980).
22 Lynn D. Wardle and Laurence C. Nolan, Family Law in the USA,
(The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011) p. 86.
23 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956.
596
_______________
24 Alicia V. SempioDiy, Handbook on the Family Code of the
Philippines, (Quezon City, Philippines: Joer Printing Services, 2005), p. 4.
25 Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., Persons and Family Relations Law,
(Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2010), Fifth
Edition, p. 121.
26Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the Philippines, (Manila, Philippines: Central Book Supply, Inc.,
2004), Volume I, p. 231.
597
_______________
27Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the Philippines, (Manila, Philippines: Central Book Supply, Inc.,
2004), Volume I, p. 231 citing McClurg v. Terry, 21 N.J. 225.
598
_______________
28Article 4, Family Code.
29Bark v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 511 F.2d 1200, 1201
(9th Cir. 1975).
30 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007) http://www.minnesotalawreview.
599
_______________
org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf citing McGuire v.
McGuire, 59 N.W.2d 336, 337 (Neb. 1953). Griswold v. Connecticut, 381
U.S. 479, 48586 (1965).
31Article 4, Family Code.
600
_______________
32Const. (1987), Article XV, Section 2.
** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Marvic
Mario Victor F. Leonen, per Special Order No. 1570 dated October 14,
2013.
*** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A.
Abad, per Special Order No. 1554 dated September 19, 2013.
601
VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 601
Republic vs. Albios
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.